So what has been the reaction?*- You’d hope there might be some informed debate about whether this prediction is realistic?- You’d hope someone would ask whether £184 billion would be better spent on improving people’s lives in other ways (take the Bjorn Lomborg proposal that clean water would do more for the world's poor than tackling climate change)?- You’d hope someone would say, even if this IS correct, there is little point the UK acting alone when it is responsible for under 2% of greenhouse gases (though shutting down completely would make a difference), so why cripple your economy until you’ve convinced China, India and the US to do the same?*No – almost all of the media has presented one view, a sheepish following of the report.*UK Environment Minister David Milliband has hopped on the bandwagon proposing new taxes such as:

- Annual rises in fuel tax;- Taxes on incandescent light bulbs;

- Exhorbitant taxes on vehicle ownership;

- Taxes on inefficient washing machines;- Taxes on flights to EU countries.*The fuel tax proposal is particularly cheeky, saying that if oil prices drop then fuel tax should increase to make up the difference!! So if oil is plentiful and cheap, the UK will pay more and more in tax. None of the proposals have any assessment as to the net effect on the economy, on the environment and on demand for air travel, driving etc. It is, essentially, a left wing manifesto of ecological taxation.

*

As Professor Philip Stott of University of London says "despite all the evidence that green policies make no difference, 'environmentalism' takes an ever stronger hold on our way of life" He says that "much 'environmental' policy is little more than discredited Left-wing thinking dressed up as pseudo science to look acceptable. Worse still, these green myths have become a back door for a new strand of authoritarianism."

*

He's right - we are seeing this in the obsession with recycling, an obsession that isn't properly investigated (PC has a useful post about it here). People get fined in the UK for not recycling, regardless of the phenomenal cost to subsidise it, without even thinking twice about getting people to pay the actual cost of landfill use (so putting out the rubbish isn't subsidised as well!). Stupid policies (subsidised landfills) beget more stupid policies (subsidised recycling). Don't dare question recycling though -the EU says it is good so all bow down to to Brussels - almost none of the mainstream media here questions recycling.*So what does Her Majesty's loyal opposition say? The BBC reports David Cameron AGREES and so do the Lib Dems. Wonderful! So no debate on such a radical issue. Not even questioning why the UK should tax itself silly in a way that makes no difference at all to climate change. It is like stopping one person pissing in the pool while the others continue unabated.

You see then people would use less energy and less transport because it wouldn't be subsidised by anyone else - but that wouldn't mean the central planners would have much to do then would it? The UK should, at the very least, pause for a second and realise it should not act to destroy wealth when it seeks to act unilaterally on the environment. It should simply remove government restrictions and subsidies that most blatantly are bad for the environment - and there are plenty of those.

13 comments:

I can't agree with you, especially when we have a throw-away-society. The developed world greed is endless and there's an ever-growing demand to make products more and more cheaply, nevermind the consequences on the environment.

Will we really be worse off, if we treat our environment with respect? Look at how self-indulgent many peoples' lives have become with our ever increasing prosperity.

"Will we really be worse off, if we treat our environment with respect? Look at how self-indulgent many peoples' lives have become with our ever increasing prosperity."Jeez--it's the brain-dead supporting the unprincipled!

This is no more than a giant scam designed to rip more money off the productive sector of society.No bloody wonder the NZ Labour govt. (the government bought by taxpayers for welfare bludgers)hopped on this bandwagon so quickly.

If you haven't already done so, go watch the film "An Inconvenient Truth" and then have little think about how that tiny little brain in the selfish right-wing body of yours might possibly have to comprehend that our present 'me' centered society (which you appear to support) might not have the right attitude to deal with a problem that could seriously dick on us all.

Sure there are many things that the UK could be doing. And I'm not totally in support of subsidies (though we do have a nicer countryside because of them). But trying to kill off public transport and improve the road network? Hello?! Braindead Blogger Alert!

Anonymous - funnily enough making things more cheaply often uses less resources (e.g. steam locomotives used a lot of energy to move not much freight compared with modern trains today). The first step to respecting the environment is enforcing private property rights, the second is extending it to the commons so that people can collectively sue for air pollution that many suffer.

nickbailey- Well starting off by insulting me is a great way to have an argument, I could call you a statist socialist authoritarian (you argue like one, blat out an insult and then make a couple of loose points) but I don't know enough about you to say that - if you used your braincells you might have noticed I'm libertarian not "rightwing" so if you get out of your bipolar Tory/Labour - Democrat/Republican world you might learn something.

Given Al Gore claimed to have been instrumental in developing the internet I don't have a high opinion of his latest efforts (I notice he uses a lot of CO2 flying around the world promoting it though).

So you oppose a "me" centred society? Which one do you like then? What of your life do you sacrifice for the objectives of others North Korea is the exact opposite. I happen to like one where people can act as they wish as long as they respect the rights of others to do the same, which - unlike the left - does not mean taking from people and banning them from doing what you don't like, rather than doing things which infringe on other people's bodies or property. It's far removed from the world painted by the state fetishists on the left whose answer to every problem is tax or regulate it because people are bad - I think people are inherently good.

Nick, it is pathetic if you took my post and think it means killing off public transport. I know a vast deal more than you about transport than you do, and I don't support "killing it off", I actually support it being sustainable, which means that the users pay. What a radical concept? It works for intercity public transport, works for airlines, works for shipping and freight. Subsidised public transport REDUCES walking and cycling which are more sustainable modes. The answer to roads, if you took your blinkers off and read the post (and read others of mine) is road pricing which then means public transport and private car users are paying what is appropriate for use of a scarce resource (road space) and YES roads should be improved.

Your ecological mates wont know it, but the UK has one of the worst standards in the western world for non-motorway road maintenance which increases fuel consumption and CO2 emissions (rough surfaces cost fuel). NZ by contrast has one of the best and that is due to a different governance and funding structure that puts optimised maintenance first. Improving this would make a difference, but Al Gore couldn't teach you that as the US is even worse than the UK on this. However, it is amazing how many men think they are transport experts.

and to add to this... you think the countryside is "nicer" due to agricultural subsidies? Well that makes up for using 2.5 times the energy to produce dairy products as the equivalent product imported from NZ doesn't it? That makes up for the significantly greater amount of fertiliser used. Don't even start to defend the Common Agricultural Policy - it is morally bankrupt and a form of theft of EU taxpayers and world agricultural producers.

Don't call me a jackass you ignorant little presumptive prick. Nick your profile indicates you're intelligent in your own field, but on this you're getting your intelligence from a failed US presidential candidate, I get mine from several years of working in public policy and transport economics. Read some books by Bjorn Lomborg and Julian Simon, to balance out your views. I was a member of Greenpeace once, I'm far from ignorant about the prevailing ecological orthodoxy, I simply did a bit more digging.

So, the moral is engage in an intelligent argument or fuck off. Life is too short to care too much about people who are scared of debating something they are passionate about.

Strangely it's our right wing (or at least former right wing) party who are the most terrified - but is there not good reason?Have a read of my post on the subject http://roberthenryjackman.blogspot.com/2006/11/comment-sensationalists-where-are-you.html

Translate

About Me

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Politics, philosophy and economics from a pro-capitalist, libertarian, objectivist perspective. Born in New Zealand, live in the UK, career has been in transport, telecommunications and infrastructure policy.